SAFECO TITLE INSURANCE v. Gannon

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that there was no claim under the policy because the facts did not show a demand for compensation
• noting that because insurers contract to cover risks which by there very nature are open-ended, “to allow the denial of coverage where untimely notice of a claim does not prejudice the insurer would be to elevate form over substance”
• refusing to apply prejudice analysis to a termination of coverage clause in a claims made policy
• refusing to apply prejudice analysis to a termination of coverage clause in a “claims-made” policy
• interpreting undefined term “claim” in insurance policy as demand for compensation
• although not defined in policy, “claim” was unambiguous and given its plain and ordinary meaning of “a demand for compensation”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).